Voluntarism and deregulation

Rachel S. Gross recently reviewed Jeffrey K. Stine's Green Persuasion: Advertising, Voluntarism, and America's Public Lands (Smithsonian 2021) for H-Environment. Gross writes:

In the 1980s, Hollywood tough guy Charles Bronson took his vigilante reputation to the world of public service. Bronson was a perfect poster boy for the Ronald Reagan-era PR effort, Take Pride in America. In TV ads, Bronson, along with fellow actors Clint Eastwood and Louis Gossert Jr., decried “bad guys who beat up on trees” and encouraged listeners to take voluntary action to help solve the problem (p. 62). The Take Pride ads were a curious take on the pressing environmental issues of the day. To be sure, vandalism did occur but to name that as a central environmental issue and to use Bronson’s image to convey pride in land as a masculine and patriotic concern were deflections. Just what these ads were a distraction from is the question that Jeffrey K. Stine addresses in Green Persuasion: Advertising, Voluntarism, and America’s Public Lands. Stine argues that the Take Pride in America campaign, which pushed voluntarism as a solution for the issues plaguing public lands, was a reflection of the conservative ideology that government was a problem rather than part of a solution. The Take Pride in America program suggested “that the enlightened self-interest of the private sector offered the ideal approach to public lands stewardship” (p. 53).

*****

Stine faces a challenge in that his book is an analysis of a government program that in the author’s own assessment was ultimately ineffectual and unimportant. In addition to showing the program’s lack of effectiveness, Stine also makes the case for why such an analysis is necessary. For Stine, the office was a failure but a revealing one, in that its longevity reveals a political history of conservative approach to environmental (lack of) action. Namely, Take Pride in America and the agenda of voluntarism it pushed via a succession of Republican administrations reflect a partisan divide on environmental policy, where conservatives aimed to deflect attention away from how they underfunded federal land agencies.

Digital Library VI: The Laws of England Relating to Public Health (1848)

This weeks addition to the digital library of historical environmental law is Joshua Toulmin Smith's The Laws of England Relating to Public Health, published in London by S. Sweet in 1848. The full title continues: Including an Epitome of the Law of Nuisances, Police, Highways, Waters, Water Courses, Coroners, Burial, &c. Relating Thereto; with an Historical Review of the Law of Sewersl and an Examination of the Proposed Measure of Sanatory* Legislation Now Before Parliament. As you can tell from the title, "public health" in the Victorian era included much of what we would today label "environmental law".

You wouldn't know it from the title, but Toulmin Smith was a major critic of England's mid-nineteenth century public health legislation, as Noga Morag-Levine has explained. A sort of "free-market environmentalist" of his time, he argued that the new centralized, administrative regulatory mechanisms enacted under Edwin Chadwick's reformist program--what Toulmin Smith called "empirical legislation"--were inconsistent with the English constitution, which (he argued) required regulation through the common law. (Compare Philip Hamburger's recent arguments in this vein.) So Toulmin Smith's work was more of an attack on contemporary environmental and health regulation than a treatise summarizing the law, as he explained in his Introduction:

The object of these pages is very simple. It is to show that the care, by law, for the public health, and for removing causes injurious to public health, is no new thing : that the law of England has ever had a most careful regard for all that concerns the public health: that the principles of the common law in reference to the matter are clear and decisive, and may be taken as models of what law should truly be in its regard for the welfare of the people. It is, further, to show that though, as manners and customs change with passing time, the machinery for carrying out certain principles of law into practice may be modified, those principles, based as they always are on national peculiarities, ought never to be neglected for the sake of introducing novel or speculative doctrines. Thus, it being a principle of the common law that any noxious accumulation is a nuisance which ought to be abated, it may be of little importance whether it be abated, in one age, by the bailiff of the court leet, or, in another, by the inspector of police; but it is of very great importance that new and theoretical remedies, interfering with numerous private rights and honest prejudices, should not be introduced and made compulsory.

The Common Law of England has been, in all ages, the great bulwark of the liberties of Englishmen. It is just in proportion as the principles of that common law have been neglected or superseded that those liberties have been endangered. And the people are bound to take care that, in the anxiety for sanatory improvement, no fresh invasion of those liberties do take place. For this purpose it is necessary that the principles of the common law be well known to the people themselves ;—and it is desired to be understood that these pages are addressed, for that purpose, to the general reader ; and that it has, therefore, been endeavoured to divest them of technical treatment.

It seems that Toulmin Smith's anti-regulatory agenda also made him something of a cholera skeptic:

Compensatory mitigation and neoliberalism

Restored perennial and season marsh and riparian forest
at Wildlands Mitigation Bank, Placer County, California (EPA)

The always interesting Dave Owen recently posted "The Conservative Turn Against Compensatory Mitigation", whose primary subject is the recent turn described in the article's title (compensatory mitigation is a policy that require parties receiving permits for environmentally harmful activities to compensate for them by improving environmental conditions elsewhere). Owen also has something to say about the origins of the practice, rejecting the arguments of critics who have portrayed compensatory mitigation as part of a neoliberal, capitalist resurgence:

The proponents of compensatory mitigation reform hardly ever identified their efforts as measures to boost the capitalist system. As one retired departmental employee explained to me, even during the Reagan Administration, debates about compensatory mitigation were driven more by conflicts over regulatory intensity and states’ rights rather than by Milton Friedman-style market ideals. And later reformers’ key goal was to strike a compromise between political mandates to accommodate economic development and legal mandates to protect the environment, and to make permitting decisions in an expedited fashion. Compensatory mitigation policy, in other words, evolved to fulfill agency goals, not to advance a free-market agenda, even though the policies did sometimes bring regulated industries the benefits of expedited and more flexible permitting.

I have to say that I don't find this very convincing, though it is true that compensation mechanisms can serve as a way of balancing interests, as Calabresi and Melamed taught us. First of all, I doubt whether one can get a full and reliable account of agency motivations by interviewing agency sources. Second, as Laleh Khalili points out in a recent interview at Viewpoint, officials and managers often work to advance capitalism without being conscious of it. Finally (and relatedly), I would posit that regulators " driven... by conflicts over regulatory intensity and states’ rights" were in fact often responding to "Milton Friedman-style market ideals" (whether they realized it or not). "States' rights" and "regulatory reform" are ideas the popularity of which in the last few decades owe a lot to business interests, politicians, and intellectuals pushing a neoliberal, capitalist agenda. It is no surprise that "agency goals" meshed with the neoliberal agenda (or that the recent conservative about-face on compensatory mitigation exposes the essential bad faith behind much of "regulatory reform").

Love Canal, CERCLA, and deregulation

This past summer H-Environment published a Roundtable Review of Richard Newman's Love Canal: A Toxic History from Colonial Times to the Present (OUP, 2016). An excerpt from Stephanie Malin's contribution:

While the Superfund Act [CERCLA] resulted from national awareness of Love Canal, and though Newman focuses on the success that legislation represents, we conclude with a troubling denouement. Love Canal is now Black Village Creek, filling up with a new round of working-class residents enticed by homes priced 10 – 20% below market value. Though former residents including Gibbs fought the relocation, they lost this battle. Developers won. The results have been tragic; as Newman recounts, health problems and toxic exposures have reemerged in this ‘remediated’ community, despite the extensive, state-of-­the-­art environmental engineering schemes used to filter leachate and otherwise remediate the site.

Newman’s Love Canal succeeds in highlighting for readers an exceptionally timely notion: before the institutionalization of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund Program, the American landscape was riddled with unregulated, unmonitored, and often unknown chemical and industrial dumps from America’s dizzying participation in the Industrial Revolution. Communities like Love Canal that dealt with these historical mistakes, Newman shows, contended with rampant pollution, contested and rare health outcomes, and instances of deep disempowerment. Newman showcases for his readers the immense risks and voluminous unintended consequences that emerge when environmental regulations are absent and when the precautionary principle is eschewed in favor of industrial economic development, in one era after another. His historical details, and his careful examination of the numerous barriers faced by Love Canal activists, display that regulatory programs that protect public and environmental health are relatively new, have been hard won, and are constantly vulnerable to eradication. Indeed, these are the very programs that have most swiftly come under attack under the Trump Administration – which makes Newmans’s message so relevant and timely. 

The Trump environmental transition

After a pleasant interlude in medieval English forests, we return to recent history with a recent post by Craig Oren on RegBlog. After laying out some of the possible deregulatory moves we will see from the Trump administration, Oren takes us back in time:

We must remember 1981, when the Reagan Administration came into power. Its choice for EPA administrator was Anne Gorsuch [Neil Gorsuch's mother-DS], who had little experience in environmental matters. Lobbyists seeking deregulation initially had much influence on the agency. During her short-lived tenure, a draft emerged of proposed amendments that would have eviscerated the Clean Air Act, much to the horror of environmental groups. Gorsuch also repeatedly weakened EPA’s enforcement office. Gorsuch warred with the agency’s career staff: a number of high-level executives were transferred—and some lost their jobs altogether—as punishment for not being sufficiently compliant with the Administration’s priorities.

Gorsuch at her farewell news conference

Capitol Hill looked unpromising, too, during the Reagan years. Then-Representative John Dingell (D-Mich.)—a firm environmentalist, but also someone who was concerned with the interests of auto companies, which employed many of the constituents in his Detroit congressional district—joined with industry and Republicans to put together a package of weakening amendments to the Clean Air Act, including a rollback of auto-emission standards l. And a so-called regulatory reform bill, designed to hamstring agencies from protecting public health and the environment, seemed in 1982 to have a considerable chance for some time of being enacted.

Equal access to justice or to obstruction?

As environmentalists deliberate the extent to which the courts can be used to stymie the anti-environmental agenda of the current American regime, the latest issue of Environmental History has a book review by Steve Vanderheiden of Lowell Baier's Inside the Equal Access to Justice Act: Environmental Litigation and the Crippling Battle over America's Lands, Endangered Species, and Critical Habitats (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016). Baier's book apparently makes a strong argument, and Baier is appreciative but critical:

Adopted in what Lowell E. Baier describes as “the earliest legislative manifestation and harbinger” of the Reagan Revolution (p. 79), the 1980 Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) authorizes reimbursement of legal fees for prevailing parties suing the government. While originally designed to serve a deregulatory agenda that would limit state power over business and persons, the EAJA has frequently come to support environmental groups pressing the federal government through the courts for greater environmental regulation, rather than less. According to Baier... the litigiousness of these groups has paralyzed the administrative state and eroded its capacity to manage the nation’s resources, to the detriment of the environment that such groups set out to protect.

Baier, as a lawyer and historian, is sharply critical of this policy evolution of the EAJA, through which courts and civil society groups came to play an increasing role in environmental policy, challenging the actions or omissions of resource management agencies. Part narrative history of the development, passage, and later evolution of the act, and part polemic against the US environmental movement and its legal strategy, the book is bound to attract two different sets of readers. Historians and other scholars of US environmental politics will find a scrupulously narrated account of the political milieu from which this legislation emerged, along with its evolution over recent decades, in the book’s first four chapters. Assembled from an impressive array of interview notes and archival texts, these accessible chapters detail the original objectives for and later impacts of this important statute.

More polarizing is the polemic that follows, with Chapters 5 and 6 painting the majority of organized environmental groups with a crude and uncharitable brush, Chapters 7 and 9 launching a relentless series of accusations against environmental litigants and their legal strategies, and Chapter 8 offering an alternative to this kind of adversarial politics in the form of “cooperative conservation,” through which polluting industry and the state are touted as better able to protect the environment in the absence of legal accountability to civil society groups....

Orcs in the history of environmental law. Really.

Thomas McGarity recently posted "EPA at Helm's Deep: Surviving the Fourth Attack on Environmental Law". The abstract:

In the second volume of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, Theoden, King of Rohan, learns that the armies of Saruman, the evil wizard, are advancing upon the defenseless city. He therefore orders the citizens to relocate to Helm's Deep, a massive fortress carved into the side of a mountain that has heretofore remained impenetrable. With the help of some elven allies who arrive in the nick of time from Rivendell, the Rohan soldiers repel wave after wave of attacks by the vicious Uruk-hai. As one wall is breached, the soldiers fall back behind an interior wall until at last there is nowhere to retreat. At that point, the king seizes the offensive, orders his soldiers to mount their steeds and take the battle to the enemy. Fortunately, at that moment Gandalf, a good wizard, returns to Helms Deep with a band of Rohan mounted soldiers, and the two armies put the enemy to rout.

For much of the past 30 years, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the laws that it administers have been under siege, much like the people of Rohan, from powerful economic, ideological and political actors who believe that the companies subject to EPA's regulatory authority should have greater freedom to go about their business unimpeded by “senseless” and “burdensome” regulations. The assaults came in three waves that peaked during the first years of the Reagan Administration, the first year of the 104th Congress, and the first six years of the George W. Bush Administration. During the first two years of the Obama Administration, EPA seized the offensive. Unlike the heroes of Helm's Deep, however, the forces of environmental progress were driven back behind the ramparts after only two years by a wholly unanticipated fourth assault from a reinvigorated business community that took advantage of an economic crisis brought on by the lack of federal regulation of the banking industry to inspire a populist uprising that inexplicably blamed federal regulation for the nation's current economic woes. Whether EPA and the foundational environmental laws that it implements will survive this fourth assault is by no means clear.